ZOA targets Rice for "pandering", LOL

When Condaleeza Rice flew to Italy last summer to buy more time for the IDF to destroy Lebanon, I did not see any statement from Morton Klein or the ZOA praising her efforts, but she makes a few remarks on the issue of Palestine to a group of Arab-Americans, and the thought-police come out of the woodwork.

Read her comments, then read the reaction from the ZOA.

The response to Rice’s speech is quite desperate. Rice said she believed an important legancy would be the creation of a Palestinian state, at which point the ZOA reaction was “false”.

Beliefs are neither true nor false ; they are not propositions.

The article is very revealing, that is if I could get the bloggers on this site to read it. It seems many contributors are falling behind in their daily blog-reading duties ….



7 Responses to “ZOA targets Rice for "pandering", LOL”

  1. Logipundit Says:

    The odds of my reading every article posted on this site regarding Israel is slim but I did read this one…

    And since any attempt by me to talk about domestic and political matters (with a critical national election now less than two weeks away) is studiously ignored by most, I will comment on said article:

    It’s obvious that the article is pro-Zionist propoganda, but I agree with most of it on principle. I do not believe blowing smoke up Hamas’ ass is politically helpful for long-term stability in the region.

    I do agree with Rice however that a two state solution would be quite the achievement. So let me ask my esteemed anti-Zionist friend if he believes that a two-state solution is a) the right thing, b) possible, and c) remotely possible with the likes of Hamas in control (elected or not)?

    And either way, when you say the article is revealing, what do you believe it reveals?

    And apologies again for blogging on subjects other than Israel; an unforgivable lack of judgement I admit.


  2. scottie Says:

    some form of a 2-state solution has been overwhelmingly supported by the vast majority of nations, with the exception of the US and israel

    personally i have my doubts about the prospects, but it would be better than nothing

    the problem is that the palestinian state that has been proposed will be the west bank , gaza, and east jerusalem, and the palestinians cannot have their own nation when there are 200,000 illegal israeli settlers in east jersualem, 220,000-240,000 illegal israeli settlers in the west bank, and after the 9,000 illegal israeli settlers were removed from the gaza, the idf has turned the gaza into a huge prison, effectively letting the palestinians out of their individual jailcells to have full roam of the prison itself (an analogy offer by stormin norman)

    the only way i think the israelis can live in peace and security while the palestinians live in a viable state is for israel to grant the right of return to the original palestinian refugees and their descendants, for the jewish state to give up its rascist doctrine, for the palestinians to give up the idea of a nation of their own, and for both peoples to co-exist in israel proper now , adding the regions of the west bank and gaza.

    the price of the palestinians giving up self-determination is full citizenship with equal rights, something that does not exist today for the arab israelis.

    the israelis and the palestinians would basically live in equal numbers, and you could re-name israel as the semite state, as both groups of people are semitic.

    now of course, i know this will never happen, and i know the reason why, but you asked for my thoughts and you have them

    since you cling to your precious labels (esteemed anti-zionist friend), i guess i will sign off saying ta-ta to my good israel-apologist buddy !


  3. JohnnyB Says:

    A one state solution? A little of a surprise there.

  4. Logipundit Says:

    A little of a surprise, but probably the most thoughtful post yet on the subject by my esteemed anti-Zionist friend :o).

    I agree with most of it as well…I do not believe that a 2 state solution is viable (any more than I believe a 3 state solution in Iraq is a good one). All it means is that you take the rather confusing appellation, “civil”, out of the picture and it simply becomes a “war”. Palestinians’ economic situation would have little guarantees for improvement, and although Israel would arguably be safer in the short term…in the long term, it just means that “many years from now there will be only one”.

    Of course a one state solution would make a lot more sense, but that’s easy of course for a bunch of Gentile/Infidels to say while sitting in front of our computers on this side of the Atlantic. If we were Muslim living in a country controlled by Jews, we would probably feel like we should kick the bums back to wherever they came from…(where was that again?)

    However, it brings the point back, though, is it possible for either a two state OR a one state solution to occur when one side doesn’t acknowledge the other’s right to exist? (Which would add another to the list of people that don’t support a two state solution: the PLO, because if one state doesn’t exist, then it’s not a two state solution).

    So could we agree that Israel should grant “full citizenship with equal rights” to Arab Israelis and the PLO should acknowledge Israel’s right to exist in order for “citizenship” to mean anything? Why would a Palestinian want to be a citizen of a country that it wants to destroy?

    The “one state” solution was decided back in 1947. But “Fatah” came along and “liberation” of Palestine became the apparent goal…while the real goal–spelled out in every charter of the PLO, the Fatah movement, Hamas, etc…all the way down the line back to the early 50s…: destruction of Israel.

    A modern nation is only as good as its founding documents…and until those documents show a Palestinian mission based on something other than the destruction of the Israeli people, and the rhetoric of its leaders reflects a “Pro-Palestinian” message instead of a “kill Israeli” message, nothing will change.

    Rice’s comparison of Palestine to our Founding Fathers is INVALID for one main reason: Jefferson, Adams, Henry, Washington, Hamilton, et al…NEVER called for the destuction of Britain.

  5. scottie Says:

    all right, one brief comment from me…

    for the thirteenth time or so, hamas does not call for the destruction of israel ; it conditioned that it would not recognize israel’s right to exist while israel continues its ILLEGAL occupation of the west bank, east jerusalem (golan occupation is illegal but more pertinent to syria’s list of grievances)

    two different things , what you said and this point

    what i described earlier i said would never happen, and i know this

    the ideal situation is for the two peoples to live together, but idealism really has no place in political discussions

    ideally, the palestinians would not have been displaced and their lands dispossessed in 48 and 67.

    but you again revert to your foggy understanding of the problem ; you think the palestinians started this whole mess

    suicide bombers did not become an entity until the late 80’s

    thats still 20 years after israel had defied (and still defies) UN 242

    the core injustice is staring you in the face

    the palestinians cannot begin to make a nation for themselves (how ironic as the land ws called palestine before zionism took roots)
    when the land all international bodies (mod the US and israel) recognize as the land for a future palestinian state is currently occupied by a foreign army which knows it can continue to break UN resolutions and all international laws because its powerful buddy can use its security council veto power to protect it.

    what a sham

    all other nations have to abide by UN resolutions, and the most egregious violator gets away with breaking dozens of them

    gideon levy once asked ehud barak what he would have done had he been born palestinian :

    ehud barak said “i would have joined a terrorist organization”

    and you never responded to shamir’s terrorist past, menachim begin’s terrorist past, ariel sharon’s war criminal past, but you continue to play the terrorist tune when discussing the palestinians

  6. scottie Says:


    i am bad about not recognizing good points, and i tend to focus on the contentious ones

    the rest of your post i agreed with, for the most part

    i think the one state solution, and you touched on it, is the only long-term solution

    but the israeli gov is adamant about the right of return of palestinian refugees

    and with people like lieberman joining the governmental cocktail party, it spells more doom for the palestinians

  7. Logipundit Says:

    I appreciate your posting for the thirteenth time or so that Hamas acknowledges Israel’s right to exist as long as it did not occupy the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

    It would’ve held more weight the first dozen times if it were even remotely true. This is not Zionist apologetics. This is fact. Read it for yourself. Nowhere in the document does it allow for Israel to exist in Israel as long as it gives up the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.

    Geography is only cited in terms of Mohammed and Islam’s claim of “every inch of Palestine”. The charter cites the Crusades as the basis of its claims and anything other than jihad as a “waste of time”.

    But wait, you must be referring to the PLO charter? If you’re referring to THAT charter, then you are referring to a revision negotiated by Yassir Arafat, which was never actually made. If those changes WOULD HAVE been made it wouldn’t have been until 1996, 33 years after the charter was created, which in its lack of acknowledgement of Israel defies the inconvenient half of UN SC 242.

    Actually HAMAS’ charter was created essentially in RESPONSE to Arafat’s attempts to open a dialogue with the US, which led to the proposed revisions of the PNC which according to even the PLO leaders before Hamas took control had still never been made….but I digress.

    This is a religious war, though. If you go back far enough to 1947 and say Israel should not have been established by the UN, you could make that argument (and you already have…Balfour Declaration, etc, etc) But, if you go back farther than that, then the EVIL Christians took it away from the Muslims, if you go back farther, vice-versa, and if you go back farther, it was actually called Israel and Judah, but before that it was controlled by the Egyptians.

    So pick your point…1947? Egyptian occupation? Babylonian? Persian?

    If we’re going to go ancient, I have to go with the Jews, since their religion was indeed there WAY before Islam came about(roughly 2500 years or so)…

    1947, blame it on the UN. I’ll take that any day. 1967, yes, I blame it on an organization bent on destruction of Israel.

    The PLO (and now Hamas) has done nothing for its people but sow destruction and hate. Their foundation was not created on “equality” and “justice” but racism and ancient religious fanatacism. Continuing to see Israel as EVIL and ILLEGAL while failing to acknowledge the fallacies (laid out in black and white in all of their founding documents) of the Palestinian Leadership does not serve anyone.

    The Arab Palestinians undoubtedly have their legitimate grievances, but your defense of Hamas is completely unfounded in any logic and fact…period.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: